Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Volume 38 | Issue 2
Article 5
1947
Is Reformation Possible in Prison Today
E. R. East
Follow this and additional works at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
Part of the
Criminal Law Commons,
Criminology Commons, and the
Criminology and Criminal
Justice Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.
Recommended Citation
IS REFORMATION POSSIBLE IN PRISON TODAY? E. R. East
The author has made several contributions to this Journal. The last, under the title: Correctional Objectives Today was published in 37(3).
The author is Administrator of Correctional Institutions, U. S. Naval Disciplinary Barracks, Naval Base, Portsmouth, New Hampshire; A. B., Brown University, 1938; Fellow, National Institute of Public Affairs, 1938. He was Junior Warden's Assist-aut Tr. in the U. S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 1938-1940; Director of Classification, Pennsylvania Industrial School, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 1940-1946 (inc. military leave) ; Lieutenant, USNR, Classification and Assignment Officer, U. S. Naval Prison, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1945-1946.-EnToa.
The opinions expressed in this article are personal to the writer, and are not to be construed as official or as necessarily reflecting the views of the Navy Department or of the Navy Service at large.
Throughout the literature of recent years concerning the philosophy of imprisonment, we often find one premise ex-pounded as the cardinal purpose of our modern prison adminis-tration-that of reformation of the offender through institutional treatment. Let us, for the moment, more closely examine and ask ourselves: "Is it proper and just to fix responsibility for reformation upon present day prison management?"
The value of imprisonment as a reformative agency at our present stage of penal progress has been greatly overstressed. We should become more cognizant of this fact and condition our thinking regarding the problems of prison management accordingly. If reformation of character does occur during im-prisonment, (and this must remain, at best, mere assumption)
then it has been effected in spite of the atmosphere and environ-ment rather than because of it. It is true that some men can de-rive profit from any situation no matter what it may be. Rather, it would appear that the principal function of a prison today is more diagnostic than therapeutic and to assume otherwise is to affix upon prison management an unfair responsibility which, through certain inherent obstacles in the purely situational ele-ments of a prison today and in the present day understanding of human behavior, is virtually impossible of fulfillment. The prison cannot be regarded as the beginning and end of treatment of the offender. It must be regarded as a clinic in the correctional system wherein, through an understanding of the problems in-volved, a framework, and framework only, of reformation cal be begun for the use of the community agencies of supervision following release.
un-REFORMATION IN PRISON
sound. Imprisonment is incompatible with reforlmation flor
im1-prisonment means punishment, the state of enforc d removal from society for socially unacceptable behavior, and punishmnit and reformation are incongruous by their very definitions. Im-prisonment necessarily involves a rigid regimentation anid an outwardly imposed discipline which are predicated upon an un-natural state of fear and the medium of force. Those who F'eel that reformation is possible in prison subscribe to the preiise
that what a man is made to do, as institutionally acceptable be-havior, lie will wish fo do even after the incentives of prison confinement are removed provided he is made to do it often enough. They assume, thereby, that repetition through force will change habits of thought which are basic for a change in character and reformation. They assume that habit patterns can be materially changed for the better after the age of Iberty, that the essential nature of character moulded before this age can be altered. This thinking is not psychologically sound. From this system of thought, we can expect, at best, only outward con-formity of behavior within the prison. Prison life, by its very atmosphere and pattern of routine, regimentation and control is different from life in the normal community and this adjust-ment, then, is not the test. True refornmation, therefore, cannot be fostered in this atmosphere for reformation cannot be forced on anyone. It can come only from self-interest which, in turn, is governed largely by a constancy of outward stimulation to do so and the situational elements of a prison today are yet far from favorable for such motivation.
It must be recalled that prisons were not-originally designed to reform their inmates but to replace certain outmoded formis of punishment and, to a large measure, capital punishment. The things they have replaced were never regarded as refornmative and neither, at first, were prisons which took their place. The thought that they might have such value was gradually evolved on a trial and error basis only and, as such, is yet subject to critical evaluation.
The ever-present element of force permeating all prison life in one form or another largely conditions the atmosphere of a prison as unfavorable for reformation. Force implies the absence
-of a common purpose, an incompleteness of cooperation between
two parties and this is incompatible with the media of reforma-tion; moreover, with force there is always an accompanying state of resistance. This state of resistance in prisons is self-evident from the almost perfect cleavage in thought and purpose we find between those who are confined and those charged with
E. B. EAST
responsibility of secure confinement. As involuntary members of institutional communities which they mutually dislike, usu-ally rejected or ignored by society and well aware of this status, the inmates develop a strong sense of loyalty and sympathy for their fellow-inmates through their common experiences of trial and confinement. No matter how hard a few may try, they cannot completely and loyally identify themselves with the workers of the institution, their dictates and avowed efforts of reformation, when realizing that their primary function for which they are paid is to keep them securely confined. There is, then, a natural cleavage which is further fostered by the many rules forbidding fraternization between the two groups. Thus, there are in any given institution, at any given time, two clashing codes of thought and behavior-administrative and inmate. Under these conditions, it is all but impossible for any inmate to enter into any administrative measures designed administratively for his benefit and improvement without sus-picion, apathy or natural reluctance. Little possibility exists, thereby, for the formation of any genuine comradeship or emo-tional bond necessary for the complete understanding which underlies reformation between the prison worker and the in-mate, the reformer and the one to be reformed. This prevents the inmate from taking an active mental part in his own ref or-mation and little, thereby, can be expected in the matter of moulding character. Reformation cannot be accomplished en masse, by impersonal contact or by treating everyone as though moulded in the same form irrespective of their individual
dif-ferences.
It is a well-recognized fact, that in the overwhelming majority of prisons today, the relatively few prison workers of necessity are too concerned with the routine operation of the prison to find ample time and opportunity for purely reformative pur-poses with other than a very few of the individuals confined. The mere installation of certain popular physical facilities de-signed for reformation is not enough. The reformative processes of a penal institution are only as great as the philosophy, under-standing, purpose and availability of the men who staff it.
Few will deny that, at our present stage of progress, im-prisonment offers us today the best physical protection against the criminal class; if, however, we claim that reformation of the criminal is also to be accomplished by the prison, then the prison itself must be still further reformed: The idea of reformation, although over-stressed as a function to be fulfilled by a prison, must not, however, be abandoned. It is this principle which has
1947] BEFOJMLATION IN PRISON 131
